🔗 Share this article

The initial phase of Donald Trump's Middle East plan has provoked a collective feeling of reassurance among EU officials. Following 24 months of violence, the truce, hostage releases, partial IDF pullback, and aid delivery provide optimism – and unfortunately, furnish a pretext for Europe to continue inaction.

Europe's Troubling Position on the Gaza Conflict

Regarding the war in Gaza, unlike the Russian aggression in Ukraine, EU member states have revealed their worst colours. They are divided, causing political gridlock. More alarming than inaction is the accusation of collusion in Israel's war crimes. European institutions have been unwilling to apply leverage on the perpetrators while maintaining economic, diplomatic, and defense partnership.

Israel's violations have sparked widespread anger among European citizens, yet European leaders have become disconnected with their own people, particularly youth. In 2020, the EU championed the environmental movement, responding to young people's concerns. These very young people are now appalled by their government's passivity over Gaza.

Belated Recognition and Weak Measures

Only after 24 months of a war that numerous observers call a genocide for multiple EU countries including France, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta to recognise the State of Palestine, following other European nations' example from the previous year.

Just last month did the European Commission propose the initial cautious sanctions toward Israel, including sanctioning extremist ministers and violent settlers, plus halting European trade benefits. Nevertheless, neither step have been implemented. The first requires complete consensus among 27 EU governments – unlikely given fierce resistance from countries like Poland and Austria. The other could pass with a qualified majority, but Germany and Italy's opposition have rendered it ineffective.

Divergent Responses and Lost Credibility

In June, the EU found that Israel had breached its human rights commitments under the EU-Israel association agreement. But recently, the EU's top diplomat paused efforts to suspend the preferential trade terms. The difference with the EU's multiple rounds of Russian sanctions could not be more pronounced. On Ukraine, Europe has stood tall for democracy and international law; on Gaza, it has damaged its reputation in the international community.

Trump's Plan as an Escape Route

Now, Trump's plan has offered Europe with an escape route. It has enabled EU nations to support Washington's demands, like their approach on Ukraine, defense, and commerce. It has enabled them to promote a fresh beginning of stability in the Middle East, shifting attention from sanctions toward backing for the US plan.

Europe has withdrawn into its familiar position of taking a secondary role to the US. While Arab and Muslim majority countries are anticipated to shoulder the burden for an international stabilisation force in Gaza, European governments are lining up to participate with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, administrative help, and border monitoring. Discussion of leveraging Israel has largely vanished.

Implementation Challenges and Political Realities

This situation is comprehensible. Trump's plan is the only available proposal and undoubtedly the single approach with any chance, however small, of achievement. This is not due to the intrinsic value of the plan, which is problematic at best. It is rather because the United States is the sole actor with sufficient influence over Israel to alter behavior. Backing American efforts is therefore both practical for European leaders, it makes sense too.

Nevertheless, executing the initiative beyond initial steps is easier said than done. Numerous obstacles and paradoxical situations exist. Israel is unlikely to fully pull out from Gaza unless Hamas disarms. But Hamas will not disarm completely unless Israel departs.

Future Prospects and Necessary Steps

This initiative aims to transition toward local administration, initially featuring local experts and then a "restructured" governing body. But administrative reform means vastly distinct things to the Americans, Europe, Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves. Israel rejects the authority altogether and, with it, the idea of a Palestinian state.

Israel's leadership has been explicitly clear in restating its consistent objective – the destruction of Hamas – and has carefully evaded discussing an conflict resolution. It has not fully respected the ceasefire: since it came into effect, numerous of non-combatants have been killed by Israeli forces, while additional individuals have been shot by militant groups.

Without the international community, and particularly the US and Europe, exert greater pressure on Israel, the likelihood exists that widespread conflict will restart, and Gaza – as well as the Palestinian territories – will continue being occupied. In short, the outstanding elements of the plan will not be implemented.

Final Analysis

Therefore European leaders are wrong to consider backing the US initiative and leveraging Israel as separate or opposing. It is expedient but practically incorrect to view the first as part of the paradigm of peace and the second to one of continuing war. This is not the time for the EU and its member states to feel let off the hook, or to discard the first timid moves toward punitive measures and conditionality.

Leverage exerted on Israel is the sole method to overcome diplomatic obstacles, and if successful, Europe can ultimately make a small – but constructive, at least – contribution to stability in the Middle East.